June 02, 2017

Some observations about U.S. withdrawal from Paris accord

Dawn by MC

With the United States checking out of the Paris climate accord, I must return to one of my favorite themes; it is something which I have written about frequently. It is not an approach that many of my friends and readers particularly approve of but for whatever it is worth, here are some portions of that before I offer some comments on President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out.

The following are taken from a newspaper piece I wrote a couple of years ago which was also a reflection of what I had written a couple of years earlier.

One always knew that Nature has no direct stake in sentient well-being. It does what it must do irrespective of its consequences on life. For me personally, once a native of Ahmedabad where summer heat can nearly destroy conscience, the cold in Chicago is always a reminder that it is us, sentient life that must adapt to Nature and not Nature to us. That is because Nature is inherently detached and unemotional even if people curiously ennoble it with the sobriquet Mother. Its affections, if there are any at all, are not motherly by any imagination.

My basic point has been that we are incidental to Nature whose primary purpose or for that matter any purpose is not to ensure that humans survive and flourish. At best we are an unintended consequence of the enormously complex natural forces that have existed since the existence of the planet over the past four and half billion years. Nature does not cradle us like babies, swaddling up in her motherly embrace. It couldn’t care less if we are around or not. Some of my friends who have this near divine view of Nature were unhappy at my approach which can come across as devoid of emotion.

On Earth Day this year on April 22, I wrote this: On Earth Day today it is important to remember that Earth does not give a fuck about our well-being. It is for us to do our damnedest to ensure that we remain worthy of its munificence and viable for its equilibrium.

The point is it is up to all of us to remain worthwhile for this breathtakingly beautiful planet otherwise it will not think twice before actually taking our breath away. In recent years much has been said about the need for humans to become a multiplanetary species. While that sounds exciting, it misses one basic point—if we are proving to be such disastrous custodians of an absolute gem called Earth, how do we become so presumptuous as to want to go and settle another planet—say for instance Mars—that is so decidedly hostile to our fundamental existence?

Earth’s rewards are so many and so diverse that we have become indifferent to them. Despite its size it is a fragile system that needs preserving everyday. It is in our selfish interest to do that. Sentience is not necessarily Earth’s primary characteristic or purpose. It just happened to have turned out that way. It could as easily have been like Mars or Venus.

Nature constantly seeks equilibrium within its working irrespective of whether in doing so it has to permanently terminate a species or a place. It has no affections for anything. We will be well-served to be reminded of that simple reality as the world negotiates a global climate deal. We do no favors to Nature and it does not care whether we worship it or not. Our determined assault on some of her components would force Nature towards a new state of equilibrium where we may not be around. It constantly makes and unmakes and remakes irrespective of whether we are there to applaud it or negotiate on its behalf.

With that as the backdrop, I view the Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord as short-sighted and irrelevant to the ways of Nature. Washington’s withdrawal from a global agreement signed by 197 countries and ratified by 147 may not be legally binding on nations but it is morally compelling for all of us to do our absolute best to see that we do not piss off Nature.

There are expectations that with the U.S. out at least for now that vacuum will be filled by China and the European Union (EU). To that end, Chinese and European leaders have already pledged to intensify their efforts to combat global warming and climate change caused by human activities. At an EU-China summit in Brussels EU president Jean Claude Juncker and Chinese premier Li Keqiang expressed even greater resolve to continue the campaign in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal.

Junker was quoted as saying, “Our relationship is founded on a shared commitment to openness and working together as part of a rules-based international system, and I am glad we can be here today to say this loud and clear. There is no reverse gear to the energy transition. There is no backsliding from the Paris agreement.”

To which Li said, “The future of China and Europe will be brilliant and splendid.”

German chancellor Angela Merkel, mindful of President Trump’s recent conduct at the NATO summit, said, the decision “can’t and won’t stop all those of us who feel obliged to protect the planet” even as she described the withdrawal as “extremely regrettable and that’s putting it very mildly.”

The U.S. withdrawal could prove to be a blessing in disguise for major power centers such as China and the EU and to a lesser degree India trying to establish their global preeminence in China’s case or disengage form decades of dependency from the U.S. in the EU’s case. India, although an unquestionably decisive presence on the global stage, continues to punch below its weight despite the much hyped posturing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

I am sure Trump’s side-swiping comment yesterday about New Delhi makes its participation in the Paris accord "contingent on billions and billions and billions of dollars" in foreign aid has not been lost on New Delhi. While it is somewhat true, India’s record on environmental protection as part of everyday life for millennia has been well-known. Even today, just as an example, there are millions of those who reuse plastic cups or Styrofoam cups until such time as they practically break down. After 18 years in the U.S. I still do that as a reflex.

I was reading India’s declaration after its ratification of the accord in October last year. Its language is understandably equivocal considering it is responsible for only 4.5 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions despite that fact it is home to 17 percent of the world population. It is at a stage in its economic growth trajectory where it is has to create wide ranging sources of energy to consume in order to keep enough pace to ensure that its vast majority of people have even subsistence level lifestyle.

India’s declaration reads: “The Government of India declares its understanding that, as per its national laws; keeping in view its development agenda, particularly the eradication of poverty and provision of basic needs for all its citizens, coupled with its commitment to following the low carbon path to progress, and on the assumption of unencumbered availability of cleaner sources of energy and technologies and financial resources from around the world; and based on a fair and ambitious assessment of global commitment to combating climate change, it is ratifying the Paris Agreement.”

Comments

Some observations about U.S. withdrawal from Paris accord

Dawn by MC

With the United States checking out of the Paris climate accord, I must return to one of my favorite themes; it is something which I have written about frequently. It is not an approach that many of my friends and readers particularly approve of but for whatever it is worth, here are some portions of that before I offer some comments on President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out.

The following are taken from a newspaper piece I wrote a couple of years ago which was also a reflection of what I had written a couple of years earlier.

One always knew that Nature has no direct stake in sentient well-being. It does what it must do irrespective of its consequences on life. For me personally, once a native of Ahmedabad where summer heat can nearly destroy conscience, the cold in Chicago is always a reminder that it is us, sentient life that must adapt to Nature and not Nature to us. That is because Nature is inherently detached and unemotional even if people curiously ennoble it with the sobriquet Mother. Its affections, if there are any at all, are not motherly by any imagination.

My basic point has been that we are incidental to Nature whose primary purpose or for that matter any purpose is not to ensure that humans survive and flourish. At best we are an unintended consequence of the enormously complex natural forces that have existed since the existence of the planet over the past four and half billion years. Nature does not cradle us like babies, swaddling up in her motherly embrace. It couldn’t care less if we are around or not. Some of my friends who have this near divine view of Nature were unhappy at my approach which can come across as devoid of emotion.

On Earth Day this year on April 22, I wrote this: On Earth Day today it is important to remember that Earth does not give a fuck about our well-being. It is for us to do our damnedest to ensure that we remain worthy of its munificence and viable for its equilibrium.

The point is it is up to all of us to remain worthwhile for this breathtakingly beautiful planet otherwise it will not think twice before actually taking our breath away. In recent years much has been said about the need for humans to become a multiplanetary species. While that sounds exciting, it misses one basic point—if we are proving to be such disastrous custodians of an absolute gem called Earth, how do we become so presumptuous as to want to go and settle another planet—say for instance Mars—that is so decidedly hostile to our fundamental existence?

Earth’s rewards are so many and so diverse that we have become indifferent to them. Despite its size it is a fragile system that needs preserving everyday. It is in our selfish interest to do that. Sentience is not necessarily Earth’s primary characteristic or purpose. It just happened to have turned out that way. It could as easily have been like Mars or Venus.

Nature constantly seeks equilibrium within its working irrespective of whether in doing so it has to permanently terminate a species or a place. It has no affections for anything. We will be well-served to be reminded of that simple reality as the world negotiates a global climate deal. We do no favors to Nature and it does not care whether we worship it or not. Our determined assault on some of her components would force Nature towards a new state of equilibrium where we may not be around. It constantly makes and unmakes and remakes irrespective of whether we are there to applaud it or negotiate on its behalf.

With that as the backdrop, I view the Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord as short-sighted and irrelevant to the ways of Nature. Washington’s withdrawal from a global agreement signed by 197 countries and ratified by 147 may not be legally binding on nations but it is morally compelling for all of us to do our absolute best to see that we do not piss off Nature.

There are expectations that with the U.S. out at least for now that vacuum will be filled by China and the European Union (EU). To that end, Chinese and European leaders have already pledged to intensify their efforts to combat global warming and climate change caused by human activities. At an EU-China summit in Brussels EU president Jean Claude Juncker and Chinese premier Li Keqiang expressed even greater resolve to continue the campaign in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal.

Junker was quoted as saying, “Our relationship is founded on a shared commitment to openness and working together as part of a rules-based international system, and I am glad we can be here today to say this loud and clear. There is no reverse gear to the energy transition. There is no backsliding from the Paris agreement.”

To which Li said, “The future of China and Europe will be brilliant and splendid.”

German chancellor Angela Merkel, mindful of President Trump’s recent conduct at the NATO summit, said, the decision “can’t and won’t stop all those of us who feel obliged to protect the planet” even as she described the withdrawal as “extremely regrettable and that’s putting it very mildly.”

The U.S. withdrawal could prove to be a blessing in disguise for major power centers such as China and the EU and to a lesser degree India trying to establish their global preeminence in China’s case or disengage form decades of dependency from the U.S. in the EU’s case. India, although an unquestionably decisive presence on the global stage, continues to punch below its weight despite the much hyped posturing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

I am sure Trump’s side-swiping comment yesterday about New Delhi makes its participation in the Paris accord "contingent on billions and billions and billions of dollars" in foreign aid has not been lost on New Delhi. While it is somewhat true, India’s record on environmental protection as part of everyday life for millennia has been well-known. Even today, just as an example, there are millions of those who reuse plastic cups or Styrofoam cups until such time as they practically break down. After 18 years in the U.S. I still do that as a reflex.

I was reading India’s declaration after its ratification of the accord in October last year. Its language is understandably equivocal considering it is responsible for only 4.5 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions despite that fact it is home to 17 percent of the world population. It is at a stage in its economic growth trajectory where it is has to create wide ranging sources of energy to consume in order to keep enough pace to ensure that its vast majority of people have even subsistence level lifestyle.

India’s declaration reads: “The Government of India declares its understanding that, as per its national laws; keeping in view its development agenda, particularly the eradication of poverty and provision of basic needs for all its citizens, coupled with its commitment to following the low carbon path to progress, and on the assumption of unencumbered availability of cleaner sources of energy and technologies and financial resources from around the world; and based on a fair and ambitious assessment of global commitment to combating climate change, it is ratifying the Paris Agreement.”